Jeff Tench, executive vice president at Vantage Data Centers, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the company had in one case “been left no choice” but to build on-site generation after a utility withdrew an allocation of grid power for a data-center project in Virginia.

Tench said the utility had originally planned an allocation equivalent to 100 megawatts for the project, then informed Vantage after construction began that the power would not be available for “five to seven years.” Faced with hundreds of millions of dollars already committed to the site, Tench said the company built an independent, on-site natural-gas power plant and commissioned it “within 18 months,” placing that data center into service for a major customer.

Why it matters: Testimony illustrated how long interconnection and delivery timelines can force data-center developers to deploy local generation to meet contractual and customer timelines, adding cost and local emissions and complicating planners’ expectations.

Details from testimony

- On-site plant: Tench said Vantage’s Virginia site was fortunate to sit above “a high volume, high pressure, natural gas line,” which allowed a rapid build of on-site generation operating “completely independent of the grid.” He described that arrangement as effectively operating in “island mode.”

- Mobile generation strategy: In subsequent questioning, Tench said Vantage has invested in a supply chain of turbines and reciprocating natural-gas engines that can be deployed on trailers for two to three years as a temporary solution while awaiting grid interconnection.

- Transition plan: Tench told the committee Vantage’s preference is always to connect to the public grid when utilities can provide a firm commitment; the company pairs grid-sourced power with emergency backup generation at most sites.

Direct quotes

- “We were left no choice,” Tench said of the Virginia project change in planned utility allocation.

- “We designed, built and commissioned a power plant … within 18 months,” he told the committee.

Senators' follow-up and context

Senators on the committee pressed Tench on alternatives such as wind, solar and nuclear; Tench replied that in the Virginia case the parcel could not accommodate those options and that the on-site solution was the only practical way to meet the project’s delivery commitments. He also endorsed efforts to speed interconnection and permitting and to expand transmission so developers can rely on grid power rather than temporary local plants.

What the hearing did not include

There was no formal regulatory decision recorded at the hearing about the Virginia project. The testimony described one developer’s operational experience and was offered as evidence in a broader policy discussion about timeline pressures, interconnection reform, and transmission investment.